As New York’s Landmarks Law enters its sixth decade, the City Council wants to rewrite the rules governing historic properties.

Despite a contentious fight over a package of revisions that stalled last year, the Council is again proposing a half-dozen recommendations to simultaneously streamline and expand the landmarks process. This month, the Council expects to vote on a bill creating timelines for the approval process.

The Council’s decision has drawn consternation not only among preservationists but also from the Landmarks Preservation Commission itself. At a hearing last year, Meenakshi Srinivasan, the chairwoman of the commission, called a number of the proposed changes overreaching. Ms. Srinivasan declined to discuss new proposals before any legislation was introduced, but acknowledged in a statement that some of the proposals had merit.

“We appreciate that the Council recognizes the work of this administration to address the backlog, acknowledge cultural landmarks and increase transparency and efficiency in commission processes,” Ms. Srinivasan said. “The agency will continue to review the recommendations.”

Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito countered that the Council wanted to ensure the changes cannot be easily rolled back by future administrations.

“It’s something that’s overdue,” Ms. Mark-Viverito, a Democrat who represents Manhattan and the Bronx, said in a recent interview. “That’s why we’re trying to balance the needs of the preservation community with the development needs of our growing city.”

The proposals come from a 37-page report, “Landmarks for the Future,” that the Council plans to release on Friday. The report offers a mix of ideas that the Council and its supporters said they hoped would protect historic buildings while promoting new ones.

Image

The Empire State Building, viewed from the Brooklyn Bridge, is a city landmark.CreditJoshua Bright for The New York Times

“What we’re really looking for is common sense legislation,” said Councilman David G. Greenfield, a Democrat of Brooklyn and the chairman of the Land Use Committee. “Some people might think timelines are an imposition; we think it’s common sense. Some people might think limiting demolitions is an imposition; we think it’s common sense.

“This law is now in its 51st year, and it needs to reflect that.”

The biggest change to the Landmarks Law would be to add timelines for public review of potential landmark buildings and historic districts. Under the proposed bill, individual properties would have to be approved within a year of being suggested for landmark status, while historic districts, which can include hundreds of properties, would have a two-year deadline.

Since 1998, according to the Council’s report, 82 percent of individual landmarks were considered within one year, while 86 percent of historic districts were voted on in two years. There is presently no deadline, and dozens of properties had been under consideration for decades before the commission cleared the backlog this year.

“What I’ve discovered, calling around to my colleagues around the country, is that lots of historic commissions have some kind of deadlines,” said Peg Breen, president of the Landmarks Conservancy, an advocacy group.

Others still worry.

“This bill remains ill advised,” Tara Kelly, the director of preservation and design at the Municipal Art Society of New York, said in an email. “The timeline for historic districts is too short; MAS holds fast to our position that three years is more appropriate.”

In a concession to preservationists, the bill includes the elimination of a previously proposed five-year moratorium on the ability to reconsider properties that do not receive landmark status.

Councilman Greenfield said the timeline bill had 30 co-sponsors, giving it a good chance of passing the 51-member body. And while Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration previously opposed the stricter rules, it has now given the bill its tacit support.

“This administration shares the goals set out by this legislation, and under Mayor de Blasio, the Landmarks Commission is already doing a commendable job of meeting the deadlines proposed,” Natalie Grybauskas, a spokeswoman, said in a statement on Thursday.

Image

The interior of Grand Central in 1988. Opponents of the current proposal to establish a one-year timeline for a vote on a proposed landmark point out that the voting took more than a year on both Grand Central and the Empire State Building.CreditKeith Meyers/The New York Times

The Council is also poised to close a loophole that allows potential landmarks to be damaged or even destroyed.

Currently, the commission notifies owners if it is considering their property. Before the property can officially be placed on the commission’s calendar and gain some protections, the owner may apply for a demolition permit from the Buildings Department. Without the protections, properties can be stripped of their historic details, as happened to a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed auto showroom on Park Avenue and an Elks Lodge in Long Island City, Queens.

According to the report, another bill would enhance transparency by requiring the commission to provide additional information on the status of applications.

The report also calls for the protection of more cultural landmarks regardless of their architectural merit. One example, given landmark protection last year, is the Stonewall Inn, an otherwise unassuming Greenwich Village bar that has become a monument to the gay rights movement.

Adding cultural landmarks could balance the spread of protected buildings throughout the city. The Council report found that of the city’s 1,361 individual landmarks, 879, or 65 percent, are in Manhattan. Brooklyn is home to 186 landmarks (14 percent), 131 are on Staten Island (10 percent), 89 are in the Bronx (7 percent) and 76 are in Queens (6 percent).

“The more landmarks, the better,” said Simeon Bankoff, the executive director of the Historic Districts Council. “The commission already has a lot of these powers, though, and simply isn’t exercising them.”

The Council will also study ways to reduce the burden of protected properties on owners, possibly through grants and tax credits or even increasing the ability to sell air rights (currently restricted to adjacent properties). And the Council staff is consulting with the commission, the Buildings Department and the Planning Department about ways the agencies and others can coordinate their efforts.

“We have this false dichotomy,” Raju Mann, the director of land use for the Council, said. “For too long, it’s been preservation versus development, but there’s no reason they can’t work together. In fact, they’ve been doing it for 50 years.”

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Bill to Alter New York’s Landmarks Law Would Set Time Limit on Approvals. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe